Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee spent a full day scrutinising the Bill's home education register provisions — debating who must be registered, what information must be provided, how data should be protected, and whether local authorities can build a trust-based relationship with the home educating community.
L(This day is devoted to elective home education, and I want to say clearly at the outset: the home education community is a collection of extraordinary people, and it is entirely understandable why the Government find them challenging to work with. The Bill gives local authorities huge powers — a comma out of place in describing your child's education and the authority can tip that child back into school. That cannot be the intention, but it has raised real fear. We need the Bill to come out with clear ways for the Department for Education to steer and improve local authority practice, and a method of recourse for parents who feel badly done by. The request for information as currently drafted could be read as requiring a daily report — which no local authority can process and no parent should face. An annual report, as some councils already use, is what works in practice. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how far guidance can limit what the Bill's text appears to demand.My Lords, I will move Amendment 231 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wei, who regrets that he is not able to be here today, as he has to attend a close family member’s wedding. The day looks as if it will be devoted to elective home education and, owing to my imminent defenestration and general crumbling health, I am in a position to say—since I shall be disengaging from this arena after 15 years in it—that I have found the home education community a total delight to work with. It is a collection of extraordinary people, and I find it very easy to understand how the Government do not find them easy to work with. I very much hope that, in the course of the Bill, we will help lay the foundations for a good, strong relationship. I thank very much the Minister and her civil servants for all the time and effort they took over the Recess to work through the amendments in this section and to look at how we might gain a better understanding of them and share that with the home education community. I look forward to the continuance of that progress through Report. My approach today will be to be very concise where I can—I will await what the Minister says about individual amendments and respond to that. So much has passed between us and civil servants that rehearsing my amendments as if that had not happened would seem futile. A large number of the amendments arise from uncertainty over the Government’s intentions, so it would be good to have something clear and unequivocal from the Minister that supports the rights of responsibilities of home educators; that celebrates the contribution they make both to the state—they save the state a great deal of money—and to the education of their children; and that requires local authorities to be supportive. The role of local authorities is crucial here; it is clear that the role they play is vital. There are many instances where people are set on home educating for the wrong reasons or where home educating goes wrong. Looking after t…
Most Gypsies and Travellers who lead a nomadic life welcome registration and the offer of local authority support. Amendment 322 does not reflect their experience. Many of these amendments are at odds with the reality facing most children not in school and with the intentions of the Bill.My Lords, as this is the first time I am speaking in Committee, I declare various unremunerated positions in Gypsy, Traveller and Roma organisations. I wish just very briefly to comment on Amendment 322, on nomadic organisations. I should say that all the evidence I have seen, and many conversations, attest quite firmly to the fact that most Gypsies and Travellers, that small minority who lead a nomadic life, welcome registration and the offer of support from local authorities—although I shall have something to say about that later. This amendment does not correspond to the experience of Gypsies, Travellers, boaters or showmen. I just briefly add that it seems that most of these amendments are at odds with the reality of the situation of most children who are not in school, and with the intentions of the Bill, but I will not prolong the debate at the outset at this stage.
In the end this is about relationships — between children, parents and local authorities. Get it wrong and the Bill becomes a recipe for disruption for everyone. On Amendment 238: what we actually need to know is which parents are taking responsibility, and how to contact them — the rest is superfluous. The safeguarding question where one parent poses a risk, and the division-of-time question, are separate issues that need separate treatment.My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his eloquent and rather moving statement to the Committee about how he sees this. Echoing those important points, in the end this is about relationships, and about children and their needs and relationships. As the noble Lord said, with the Bill there is a real danger that this will be hugely disruptive for local authorities and parents, and in many ways could be a recipe for trouble to come if we get this wrong. But there are ways in which we can get this right and get proportionate reporting around the Bill. So there is a lot to get right here. I will come back to various of those points later, but the simple point I wanted to make here was in relation to Amendment 238, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is about the requirement to know which parents are educating, how and for how long. We will come back to that point in various ways in later groups. There are two key points here. One is about safeguarding, where there is an issue with at least one of the parents, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has an amendment on, and there is one about the division of time between parents educating, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has an amendment on. This whole section needs to be rethought. What do we really need to know? We need to know which parents are taking responsibility, and where they are and how they can be contacted, but it seems that the rest of it is superfluous. I simply make those points in response to Amendment 238.
The home education community is well motivated, deeply reflective about education, and a source of real expertise that government should be tapping rather than trying to regiment. The Bill as drafted is built on a lack of trust — it is highly prescriptive and will generate vast amounts of paper that goes into a drawer. If it is not too late, pull back the prescriptiveness, give local authorities better direction and more support, and build the relationship on mutual understanding.My Lords, I support Amendment 234 in particular, to which I have put my name, and, more generally, endorse the views that my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, just set out. I have just begun to engage with home education as a concept and as a community, and it is clear right from the start that the community is very well motivated and, indeed, deeply reflective about education in this country and how it works, and it has a lot of expertise into which government should be trying to tap and learn from rather than regiment and regulate. If it should turn out that the worst happens and my noble friend Lord Lucas is indeed forced to step back from advocating support for this sector, I am sure that I and other noble Lords will be very willing to pick this up and continue the discussion. I thank the Minister and her team for all the communication that there has been over the summer, as there have been some very comprehensive communications and emails that have been very helpful and will be very useful today. I want to make just one brief point today, which is relevant to Amendment 234 but also to all those in this group, which is the point about trust. Trust is the way home education works—trust and mutual understanding. In many ways, the Bill as drafted gives huge powers to the Government which appear to be based on a lack of trust and a determination to regulate. They are very detailed and prescriptive and will cause all sorts of practical difficulties, and are based on a misunderstanding about how much of home education actually works. Now, it is true that some local authorities are not as positively motivated as others. It is certainly true that all are extremely overworked in this area. It is difficult to see what is gained by generating vast amounts of paper and reporting which go into a drawer and are not much looked at. To conclude, if it is not too late, a rethink in this area would be helpful. There could be a pulling back of some of the pre…
We must keep asking ourselves: will this legislation actually work? It is not only about knowing where children are — it is about the quality of the relationship between local authorities and home educators. Some authorities do this brilliantly; others wave the statute rather than act in the child's best interest. There are also thousands of children who are not being educated at all and are simply languishing at home. Registration matters for their sake, not just for the well-organised home educator. I am not convinced that holding a portfolio or being a chess grandmaster should exempt a child from registration — equality of opportunity applies wherever you are educated.My Lords, I look back to eight years ago, I think, when I had a very simple Private Member’s Bill, which said that home educators should register. That was it. It was as though I had ignited a bonfire of education, because the online abuse and letters that poured in were just unbelievable. Together with my noble friend Lord Addington, I, perhaps stupidly, decided to organise a round table to discuss home education with home educators, teacher associations and anybody else who was interested. That was a real learning curve for me. Since that beginning, I have got to know many home educators. In fact, one recently sent me a wonderful, illustrated book on home education. However, when we met at the round table there were pointed and jabbing fingers; it reminded me a bit of the local city council. Nevertheless, we became quite good friends and I understood home education quite well. Since that time, we have all been on a very important journey. We have to ask ourselves why we want to do this. It is for one reason only—for our children and young people. If every home-educated child went to school, the system would not be able to cope. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are correct. It is all very well our agreeing legislation, but we must always have at the back of our minds whether it will work. It is important not only to know where our children are and that they are being educated, but that there is a correct relationship between the local authority and the home educator. There are some fantastic examples where local authorities work closely and successfully with home educators to the benefit of both. There are some learning curves where local authorities do not have that good relationship with home educators—where they think that giving the cane and waving the statute is more important than trying to do what is in the best interests of the child. There are thousands of wonderful home educators, but there are also children who are not being educated but ar…
I cannot support amendments that carve out exemptions from the register — the whole point of the register is that a local authority knows which children are not in school, and exemptions undermine that. But I share the concern that the information being collected goes far further than what we proposed in 2022. A good test for any of these provisions: does it feel fair to parents? If the amount of detail required feels unfair, it will damage the trust that is so essential to the relationship with local authorities. I hope the Minister can reassure the Committee.My Lords, all the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, ably presented by my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek exemptions from or exceptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school. Rightly, my noble friend stressed the importance of the relationship between the local authority and home-educating parents. As other noble Lords pointed out, the Government need to take great care in this legislation so that the requirements set out in the Bill do not inadvertently damage that relationship and potential trust. Having said that, I cannot support these amendments and their aim to find exemptions. First, at its simplest, the point of the register is to ensure that a local authority knows which children are not in school and, obviously, the amendments would undermine that. Secondly, one of the key points of the register, as I understand it, is that it would allow home-educating parents who need support from the local authority to access that support. Again, excluding these children would prevent that. Finally, these amendments assume that in these conditions it may indeed be preferable to educate the child at home. Even if this is the case in the majority, if not the vast majority, of cases, it remains reasonable and proportionate to record that that child is not in school. With regard to Amendments 234 and 238, my noble friend Lord Lucas raised the important point of principle that the information collected should be proportionate, which, in simple terms, means that the local authority needs to actually use that information, as my noble friend said in his opening remarks, rather than just record it. The Government’s proposals for the information collected go a lot further than the legislation we brought forward in 2022. I share the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucas and other noble Lords as to whether it is all necessary. Going back to the point about the relationship between the local authority and parents…
We wholly recognise the right of parents to educate their children outside schools — that is not in question. But local authorities must be able to identify all children not in school to ensure they are receiving a suitable education. The registers should not encroach on the ability to home-educate; they should support local authorities to engage positively, identify best practice and build trusting relationships. Let me be absolutely clear on the information required: it would not mean daily, weekly or even monthly reports. That is not the intention. On the consequence of failing to provide information — there is no fine at that stage. The process moves toward a school attendance order, which is an existing process, and fines arise only if a court order is breached. On exemptions such as teaching qualifications or a chess grandmaster status: the local authority would still need to know of the child to assess the exemption, making registration the obvious solution in any case.My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wei, Lord Lucas and Lord Crisp, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for taking time over the summer to meet my officials. Having the opportunity to discuss in detail with noble Lords how the provisions for children not in school are intended to work in practice was extremely beneficial and instructive. I am giving careful consideration to some of the finer details of the provisions with which noble Lords have indicated that they are not wholly satisfied. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that in government we have worked well and closely with home educators, who are rightly challenging on many of the issues that noble Lords have raised in the debate. Just to be completely clear, we know that the home education community is diverse and varied. Home education can take place in all walks of life, in cities or the countryside, and be delivered by those with professional teaching experience and those without. It often delivers an excellent education to children, but it is important that the registers work as intended. They should not encroach on the ability to home-educate. I have said previously in these debates and will continue to say that we wholly recognise the right of parents to educate their children outside schools. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, it must be possible for local authorities to identify all children not in school to ensure that they are receiving a full-time, suitable education. That oversight should be underpinned by local authorities engaging positively with home educators. That is why the Bill also places a new duty on local authorities to provide advice and information when requested to do so by parents. The registers should give us a clearer picture of not only how and where children are being educated but also how local authorities engage with and support children not in school and their families. This information will suppor…
- The Minister's words on the relationship with local authorities were hugely positive — I will study them in Hansard and come back if I have any concern. On nomadic families: which local authority do they register with? That is a detail that needs to be clear. On the information requirements: the Bill as written appears to require recording of very detailed, minute-by-minute provision, yet the Minister says an annual report will be sufficient — can guidance actually do that? Can guidance override what the Bill's text says must be recorded? And can guidance definitively define a term like 'receiving education' that is not defined in the Bill? I need a clear answer on whether guidance has that legal force, or whether the Bill's structure needs adjustment.
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, in particular her words on the relationship with local authorities. I will study that in Hansard and come back to her if I have any problem with it, but my first impression was that it was hugely positive and very helpful. I thank her very much. She said that the Department for Education has intervened with local authorities. I will ask for a better understanding of how that process works, because it is such an important part of making sure that local authorities that are not in the best place progress to a better one. I understand the objection to my noble friend’s “do not register” amendments. I was wondering how he would have argued for Mozart—I think Mozart might have appreciated the intervention of a local authority in his education. I should like to pick the Government up again on how nomadic families are to work with this legislation. Which local authority do they register with? How does that work? This is just so that it is clear. I know it is an item of detail and I will obviously not pursue an amendment on it, but knowing how that works for nomadic families and families not consistently in one place would be very helpful. The Minister said some very helpful things about requiring high-level information, not every day or even every three months, which comes back to the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about focusing on an annual report. I would love to see that. The Bill does not say that. The Government are relying on their ability in guidance to take what is in the Bill, which is a very detailed, “record every minute” requirement, and say, “Actually, if you give us a report once a year, that will be fine”. Very early on, I sent a message through the department to the Government’s legal draftsman to ask what the limits on this are. How far can guidance go against what is there in the Bill? Do the Government have the power to say in guidance that an annual report would be enough? I would…
- This group concerns data protection and sharing — some very personal data is involved. Where families are breaking apart or where abuse is a factor, it is vital that data does not reach the wrong people. The amendments are self-explanatory; I would rather hear what the Government have to say before rehearsing them.
My Lords, this group concerns data protection and sharing. Obviously, we are dealing here with some very personal data. People want to be sure that it is handled right and not shared with the wrong people. Where families are in the process of breaking up or where abuse is concerned, it is particularly important that the data does not get to the wrong people. By and large, the amendments in this group for which I am responsible are self-explanatory. It would be most helpful for me first to listen to the Minister responding on where the Government find themselves. I beg to move.
- On Amendment 254A: where one parent has been abusive to the child, partner or spouse, it is vital that their address is not made available to that parent through the register. This is not an abstract concern — it was raised specifically in our detailed discussions with officials. Something needs to be on the face of the Bill to protect parents in that position, not left entirely to regulations.
My Lords, I want to say a few words about Amendment 254A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I have added my name. I want to spell out what I suspect noble Lords understand fully, which is that there are issues here. In certain cases, where perhaps one parent has been abusive to their child, partner or spouse, it is vital that addresses are not made available to that parent. Perhaps I could just go back two or three steps and preface my remarks by saying, first, how much I appreciate the warm remarks on home education made by the Minister in opening. They set a much better tone than has tended to come through in this debate. Something else that I omitted to say at the beginning is that my thanks go to the Minister and her officials for the excellent meeting we had. It lasted much of the day and, frankly, they were very open and willing to discuss things; that was very helpful. I do not know how much movement we got out of it—we will see during the course of today—but it was helpful to have that meeting and to understand things clearly. As all noble Lords have said, there is an issue of balance here between supporting the good people who are providing home education because it is best for their children, or for another good reason, and supporting the missing children who are abused or neglected or have missed out. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made an important intervention on this. We need to get that balance right. We discussed with officials the issue dealt with in Amendment 254A. It was said that this could be picked up in regulations or whatever, but there needs to be something in the Bill to help parents who are specifically worried about safeguarding. This amendment is probably as simple as it gets in pointing out that where there is a concern about abuse, or an order standing against one parent, this should be handled by an authority in an appropriate fashion.
- Local authorities must not retain information about a child on the register after compulsory school age ends. Many Gypsy, Traveller and Roma families have a well-founded mistrust of unnecessary scrutiny and targeting by authorities. Deleting register data when a child turns 18 — or perhaps 25 for SEND children — would allay those fears and ease cooperation with the registering authority.
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 267 in my name and in those of the noble Lord, Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, whom I thank for their support. This amendment mandates local authorities not to keep the information they have on the register after the child has grown up, for two reasons. First, it is not necessary after the age of school education has passed. Secondly, many Gypsy, Traveller and Roma families have a well-founded mistrust of unnecessary scrutiny, targeting and intervention on the part of authorities. This amendment would allay their fears and ease liaison with the registering authority. It may be that discretion should be used in the case of SEND children, perhaps until the age of 25, but that is for discussion later. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will understand the need for this amendment.
- If safeguarding information can be shared with both parents but one of them poses a further risk to the child, should that information really be shared? That is what Amendment 254A probes. I want to hear what the Minister says before deciding what to bring back on Report.
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 254A, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his comments. As a society, we can be proud that, over the years, we have carefully and proportionately brought in safeguarding procedures which really make a difference to the lives of children and young people. We know that, by and large, our children are safe. Occasionally, we find a gap in the regulations or in the provision, and we come together to try to sort that out. In a sense, safeguarding information can be shared with parents. This amendment comes out of conversations with a number of organisations that have given thought to how, in some cases, this can be harmful for the child. If there is a safeguarding concern, details can be shared with both parents, but my amendment questions whether it is appropriate if it risks further harm to the child. In a sense, this is a probing amendment, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say as it will impact my thoughts when we come to Report.
- The House needs reassurance and clarity on several important technical questions: the right to privacy and family life under Amendments 235 and 297; how data breaches will be handled under Amendments 268, 275 and 375; data removal under Amendments 267 and 273; data protection under Amendments 265, 272, 328 and 504; and the difficult question of sharing information where a parent has abused the child, covered by Amendments 236, 236A, 254A and 266. Families need absolute clarity on how their data will be protected, who will have access, and what will be public.
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group, which, in common with some of the earlier groups, seeks to probe the Government’s position on some important, albeit quite technical issues. These include the right to privacy and family life, as covered in Amendments 235 and 297; the handling of data breaches, covered in Amendments 268, 275 and 375; and data removal, covered in Amendments 267 and 273. Throughout, the House is looking for reassurance and clarity from the Minister as to how these issues will be handled. Amendments 265, 272, 328, Clause 33 stand part and Amendment 504 all relate to data protection. Again, the points about relationships and trust, and families having absolute clarity as to how their data will be protected, who will have access to it and what will be public, are obviously important. Finally, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, Amendments 236, 236A, 254A—in the noble Lord’s name—266 and 305 relate to the delicate and difficult issues about sharing information in cases where abuse of a child by a parent has either been alleged or confirmed. Again, the more clarity the Minister can bring, the more helpful it would be for the House.
- Data protection law already requires that data not be kept longer than necessary — entries on the register will be deleted before a child turns 18, since only children of compulsory school age are eligible. Local authorities will not be able to publish names or addresses from the register — the Bill explicitly prevents it. Where a known abuser makes a subject access request about their child, the local authority as data controller can weigh safeguarding concerns in deciding what to disclose. On domestic abuse: parents who have fled do not need to seek out the other parent's details — they provide only what they know. UK GDPR already requires breach notifications to the ICO within 72 hours and to affected individuals without undue delay; families have a right to compensation. Immigration authorities are not among those with whom register data may be shared. We will continue working with domestic abuse organisations to ensure all necessary protections are built into guidance.
My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the sharing and protection of information on the registers. I can completely understand concerns about the collection and processing of data, and I hope to provide in my response some of the reassurances that noble Lords seek. But we must also be clear that we must not make them a barrier to legitimate information sharing. The recording and sharing of relevant information on children can be life-saving and, as we have discussed, children not in school registers will support local authorities to keep accurate records of eligible children, identifying those who require support and facilitating better co-ordination between support services, as well as enabling them to fulfil the requirement to understand where children are receiving education outside school. Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that local authorities are not required to collect information on their registers that would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Our published ECHR memorandum outlines the position on this, and we are confident that the provisions in the Bill are compatible. I turn to Amendments 236 and 236A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As with Amendment 238, which I spoke to on the previous group, these amendments seek to place exemptions on the requirement for registers to contain certain information on the child’s parents. I have outlined why that information is vital, but I appreciate that noble Lords have tabled these amendments based on concerns that some parents are estranged from their families for reasons such as domestic abuse. Recognising that concern, we have engaged with organisations that support domestic abuse survivors on our proposals and will continue to do so as part of their implementation. Organisations like Women’s Aid have long called for the introduction of children not in school regis…
- The Government created the National Cyber Security Centre precisely because the threat landscape — especially with AI — moves faster than any department can follow. Yet time and again departments do not use it. On Amendment 504: before launching a system holding sensitive family data, get the NCSC to certify it. This resource exists inside government — the department should use it.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that thoughtful response. I will pick up anything with which I disagree—I did not notice anything —later. I want to say just one thing on Amendment 504. The Government created this cybersecurity centre—because the risks, the techniques and the availability of those techniques are moving so quickly, particularly with artificial intelligence—so that the best possible expertise is available to government departments. Time and again, though, they do not use it. In a recent case with which I have been dealing, DSIT got a chunk of its vital core code developed in Romania. It is not secure to do that; you do not know what it is doing and who it is doing it for. The way in which devices were secured was not up to scratch either. This resource is there as part of government. It should be used by departments, which cannot in all reason keep up with the latest threat and techniques, to be sure of what they are doing when it comes to security. It really is the best thing that can be done, so I encourage the Minister to get the department to take advantage of that facility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
These amendments — including Amendment 236A and Amendment 254A — all address one problem: protecting children from a parent who has sexually or physically abused them. I was brought to this by a mother whose son was abused by his father from the age of four. She made the case forcefully to ministers and officials, and I am grateful that the Government are genuinely listening. The point is simple: if the abusing parent's details must appear on the register, a malicious subject access request can expose the child's whereabouts. We know this happened — a convicted abuser rang up and was given information from a register. The only reliable protection is to keep that information off the register entirely. What is not in the register cannot be released.My Lords, the grouping of these amendments is becoming a bit confusing. This amendment and Amendment 237 are directed to the protection of sexually abused children, but so are Amendment 236A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will therefore be addressing the problem of protecting sexually abused children at this stage in this group. I did not intervene earlier because I thought it sensible to collect all my words dealing with the same issue together. Before I go any further, I should like to refer to when my noble friend the Minister got to the Dispatch Box at the beginning of this stage of the Committee and kindly mentioned my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords who have participated in this Bill. She also referred to the meetings that have taken place at the Department for Education with her officials and with her colleague the Minister, Stephen Morgan. I wish to express extreme thanks to my noble friend and the officials for their helpfulness. On this Bill, the Government are listening. This has not been exactly a feature of recent Bills, either from the Conservative Benches or my Benches. On this Bill, however, the Government are listening and we are grateful. My attention was drawn to this problem by a mother who had a serious problem with her husband abusing her son. That kind lady has been very objective and forceful in presenting her case. She spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Frost—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. She also came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I do not know whether she came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but he has certainly been in contact with her. It has been helpful to have the evidence that she provided. I am not going to identify her, although I should also mention that the Minister himself, Stephen Morgan, met her. My noble friend’s officials also met her and exchanged emails with her. A lot o…
- On Amendment 254B: as currently drafted, the duty to report education providers could sweep in a wildlife trust running occasional field days, a rugby club, or any organised activity with an educational component. Already one wildlife trust in the Midlands has written to home educators saying it is putting its provision on hold until the Bill's impact is clear — that is a direct and immediate harm. The Bill needs parameters on the face of it: something like, the duty to report providers applies only to those offering regular education of 10 or more hours a week, which are not primarily social or recreational, and where the information has not already been provided in an annual report. Form-filling will not catch poor home education — what matters is whether the education matches the particular child's needs, and more than half of home-educated children have special needs. The register as a quality-assessment tool is fundamentally flawed; the most important evidence — the reality of that child's circumstances — is not in any form.
My Lords, this is the point at which I will make one of the two main interventions that I propose to make today, on my Amendment 254B. Before I come to that, I will comment on two other amendments. I added my name to Amendment 239, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would leave out the bit about the split between parents of how many hours are provided per week. This seems completely redundant information and is not necessary. I understand the point that the register should include some reference to the fact that parents are providing the education—it is not all being done through a private tutor—but it seems to me that the split is unconvincing. When the Minister responded, essentially to this point, in an earlier group, she said something about wanting to know the number of hours of education taking place during the week. I may have misinterpreted but I think that is what was said, and it prompts me to ask a question of the noble Baroness. Does she have a number of hours per week that are expected to be covered by education? I should be interested to know if there is some number that the department has in mind. The second amendment to which I have added my name, Amendment 260, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about local authorities being able to ask for any other relevant information. That is too much of a catch-all; enough information is already provided. I should be keen to hear her arguments on this and hope that the Minister will accept them. My main intervention is on Amendment 254B, which concerns the first point at which parents are asked to provide a lot of information about who is providing the education. My amendment picks up the point that this is a large set of possible providers. As written, it could include the occasional organised event. It could include regular visits to the Guides, which is an educational charity, I understand. It could include a rugby club and other such things—anything that has an educational component…
Lord Crisp has completely persuaded me that Amendment 254B should be adopted. My own Amendment 257A would add to the register whether a child is a young carer and whether a young carer's needs assessment has been carried out. This is not about preventing home education — it is about safeguards. Salma is a real example: withdrawn from school, nominally home-educated, but actually caring around the clock for both parents. She missed eighteen months of school before getting specialist support, and no home-schooling had taken place at all. There are 15,000 children caring 50 hours or more a week — 3,000 of them aged five to nine — and a further 21,000 caring 20 to 49 hours a week. Young carers are 86% less likely than their peers to gain a university degree, and on average wait three years for support. Including young carer status on this register would help local authorities comply with their duty under the Children Act 1989 to identify young carers who may need support.My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, he has totally persuaded me that Amendment 254B should be adopted, and I hope the Minister will respond sympathetically to it. Amendment 257A in my name would require the statutory local registers of children not in school to include whether a child is a young carer, and whether a young carer’s needs assessment has been carried out. It is a revised version of Amendment 251 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Storey. The wording is identical, but by amending new Section 436C(2) rather than new Section 436C(1) it makes it easier for local authorities to comply, because new Section 436C(1) is compulsory with no exceptions, whereas new Section 436C(2) refers to information that the local authority has or might reasonably obtain. I thank the Minister’s officials for the constructive discussions that they had with the Carers Trust and local carer services on this issue. They led to this new amendment, which I hope improves its chances of acceptance. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for indicating their support for this revised amendment. The amendment is closely related to Amendment 209, which we discussed on 3 July. That would require local authorities to ensure that they have offered a young carer’s needs assessment if they are notified of a pupil who is being withdrawn from school. Amendment 257A, which we debate now, complements that by including such information on the register. I will not repeat the arguments for improving the protection for young carers, but I mention very briefly the case of Salma, who is caring for her mother, who has physical and mental health issues, and her father, who has physical health issues. She was taken out of school after being subject to bullying. The parents stated that they were home-schooling her while always working towards getting her back into specialist…
Amendment 257A is essential. Young carers can find themselves taking on ever-increasing levels of responsibility — looking after parents with multiple physical and mental health needs as well as younger siblings. Over 15,000 children caring 50 hours or more a week is simply not compatible with receiving the education every child deserves. Without being in school, they also miss the peer support groups, mental health support and academic help that good schools provide for young carers. We need strong safeguards if we are to be satisfied that young carers being home-educated are genuinely being educated.My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I added my name to his original amendment. I am afraid I was a bit slow off the mark in adding it to his revised amendment, to which the noble Lord has just spoken. I strongly support it. The noble Lord has set out the case for it extremely well. I want to emphasise a couple of points. I have always had concerns about young carers being withdrawn from school for home-education. I am concerned that they do not get the necessary breaks from caring responsibilities. We all know how important respite care is for all carers, particularly young ones. Young carers can find themselves taking on ever-increasing levels of caring responsibility. Some of the case studies I have been looking at may well be at the extreme end of the spectrum, but they were talking about young carers who were looking after mum and dad with multiple physical and mental health needs, as well as looking after two or three younger siblings. I really do not know how on earth they can take on that caring responsibility and still ensure that they are educated. I was also very struck by the statistics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He said that over 15,000 children were caring for 50 hours or more per week. This is not compatible with a child receiving the degree of education that we would all want them to have for their own life chances. I am also concerned that they will be missing out on the support that can be provided for young carers just because they are not in school. I know that some schools are very good at running groups for young carers, such as peer support, mental health support and additional academic support. It is critical that young carers can still access this kind of support if they need it and are being educated at home. My main concern is the inappropriate or excessive levels of care that these young people are being asked to take on, because of the feeling of isolatio…
- Schools should be required to ask for and record why a child is to receive home education when parents withdraw them. The Department for Education lists the reason as "unknown" in 42% of cases, and an estimated 111,700 children are currently home-educated — a 20% rise in a year. We must collect the reasons to understand why children are leaving school and, where possible, address those causes — including bullying of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children, and the off-rolling of children who might affect a school's exam pass rates.
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 250 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, whose support I greatly value. This amendment would oblige schools to ask for and record why the child is to receive home-education. This is not done at present and the Department for Education lists the reasons as “unknown” in 42% of cases. The current census estimates that 111,700 children are being home-educated, a 20% rise since last year—hardly an endorsement of what has been going on in some schools. The reasons must be collected to get a better understanding of why children abandon the advantages of school and where feasible, deal with them. We know there are many reasons, some of which, like the bullying which so many Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children endure, must be more effectively and specifically tackled; among those reasons, regrettably, is the desire of some schools to ensure their exam pass rates reach a certain level, thus neglecting the children who most need their education to work. I hope my noble friend the Minister can accept this amendment.
The amendments from Lord Young and Lord Crisp together illustrate the core difficulty of the Bill: very different groups of children are involved, all with different needs, and the legislation has to serve them all. The concerns about children with caring responsibilities are real and I hope we take this opportunity to address them.My Lords, I will contribute very briefly to this debate. I thought that the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Crisp, showed the difficulty of the Bill in that very different groups of young people are being referred to and both sets of needs need to be met. Therein is the difficulty of getting the legislation right. I very much took the point about children with caring responsibilities and hope that we can take this opportunity to improve that; it is something about which I have been concerned for a while.
England is one of the most permissive countries in the world on home education — there is a strong default presumption that parents may home-educate if they choose, and my counterparts in other countries were often astonished at the degree of freedom involved. But home education is not a single community. Alongside the excellent archetypal home-schoolers — many of whom are parents of children with SEND — there are parents of children in illegal schools, children who have been off-rolled and whose parents cannot give them a suitable education, and children withdrawn simply to avoid prosecution for non-attendance. A register is right. But the register should not become a tool for microassessing the quality of every parent's provision — it should answer three questions: is there reason to think this child may not be receiving a suitable education? Are there safeguarding flags? And what administrative data does government need? The exemptions proposed are sadly misguided: they would shrink the register to a register of concerns. The simplest principle is that if information would normally appear on a school's administrative register, it should appear on the not-in-school register too. On the education information itself: do not push it too far. Subjective information about time spent on maths or English will not work — different parents will interpret it completely differently. Commission research studies and samples instead.My Lords, I declare an interest: I am now a member of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee. I support amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran, and I support and echo some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, my noble friend Lord Young and others. To put it in context, we are one of the most permissive countries in the world on home education. We have a strong default presumption that parents should be able to home-educate if they choose and no expectation of tight supervision of that. When I was chief inspector, my counterparts in other countries were often astonished at the degree of freedom that parents in this country have. There are countries where home education is simply illegal, and there are many countries where there are quite significant controls on quality. To take just one example, in Belgium, I recently talked to the Flanders chief inspector. Parents must have their child do the end of primary school test. If they fail, they have one further opportunity; if they do not pass either time, they must be registered in a school. Similarly, there are provisions that if parents repeatedly refuse to allow a local authority employee to visit them at home, the child must be registered at school. I am not advocating these things specifically, simply putting it in context. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a important point that this is not a single community. People have referred a number of times to communities. There are communities of what you might characterise as the archetypal home-schoolers, many of them excellent, which include many parents of children with special educational needs of various kinds. They are strongly represented in forums, support groups and lobbying, and they are valuable and important people. There are also many parents who do not take part in these kinds of forums. They are the parents of children in illegal schools where children are nominally home-educated but actually in illegal…
On Amendment 260: the clause allows collection, if reasonably obtainable, of "any other information about the child's characteristics, circumstances" or needs — that is paragraph (m), so it comes on top of an already extensive list. Is "characteristics" limited to protected characteristics? What kinds of circumstances does it capture? The only limit is that collection must be "for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children" — but "safeguarding of education" is a new concept and an extremely wide power. Parents who have withdrawn their children for good reason will face intrusive questions that will provoke legal challenges. Even if the presumption in favour of home education is not formally reversed, a clause this broad creates exactly that perception.My Lords, I wish to follow on; in fact, my noble friend has given an introduction to the comments that I wanted to make in relation to Amendment 260 in the names of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. She mentioned phrases such as “not push it too far” or “take a step back from this”, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined on a previous group that this should be proportionate reporting and information collection, which is really important. On Amendment 260, we get down to the clauses— I am a lawyer by training and have been in government as a Minister, and I know that government loves such clauses—which require the collection, if it is reasonable to obtain it, of “any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances” or needs. The only caveat to that is that those should be included in the register “for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”. My first point in relation to that is that that is new paragraph (m), so we have already asked for an awful lot of information before we have our lovely “scoop it all up” clause. But is “characteristics” limited to protected characteristics? That is a separate paragraph in Clause 31, so I suspect it is not. What kinds of characteristics will be asked of families in relation to their children, what kinds of circumstances and what limit on that or on their needs? Obviously, we are not talking about special educational needs because that, again, is somewhere else. It is an enormously wide power for them to be able to reasonably obtain this information. The only limit on it is “for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”. Part of that limitation is well known. It apes the Children Act, which says that we are there to promote and protect the safeguarding of the welfare of children. But here it is about the safeguarding of education, a slightly new concept that is there as a key limitation, in the way the par…
The moral case for Amendment 257A is overwhelming. We owe an enormous debt to kinship carers for keeping children out of the care system at disproportionate cost to themselves. The same is true of young child carers. The idea of a five-to-nine year old taking on serious caring responsibilities — through no choice of their own — is extraordinary. Their situation demands that we protect their right to education.My Lords, I rise briefly to add to the support given to Amendment 257A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, from all sides of the Committee, and just to emphasise almost the moral case for it. Earlier on in Committee, when we were talking about the important role of kinship carers, I think we recognised the enormous debt that we as a society owe to them for the burden that they take on and the large number of young children they keep out of the care system, at disproportionate cost financially and to themselves socially and developmentally. The same is true of young children who end up being carers. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we have 15,000 children caring for 50 hours or more a week, of whom 3,000 are between five and nine years old. If I remember dimly myself at that age, and if I think of my children at that age, the idea of taking on the responsibilities that some of these young carers take on, through no choice of their own, is extraordinary.
Baroness Spielman has put the case for Amendments 243 and 260 far better than I could, and Lord Crisp has put the case on Amendment 254B far better too. I have also been persuaded by Lord Russell and Lord Young that Amendment 257A is extremely powerful.My Lords, I was going to rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 243, 249 and 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I added my name, but the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, has put it far better than I possibly could. I was going to talk about concerns about the home-schooling fraternity, but my noble friend Lord Crisp has put it far better than I could. I have also been persuaded by my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that Amendment 251 is extremely powerful. I am greatly looking forward to the Minister’s reply to these powerful arguments.
- What Lord Crisp and Baroness Spielman have said is hugely important. The Bill is unclear and possibly disproportionate on several amendments. On Amendment 245: if a private tutor teaches online and never enters the child's home, why should they supply a private address? On Amendment 248: many parents rightly say their children learn continuously — through conversation, trips and hobbies, with no rigid timetable. Precise time-logging forces home education into a classroom straitjacket. On Amendment 260 and especially Amendment 261: what is required and why? Those of us who have been here for a while remember what happened after RIPA, and how local authorities started to use surveillance powers in ways nobody intended. Open-ended data collection powers carry the same risk.
My Lords, I should just say “ditto” to that, should I not? What the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said is hugely important, as is the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the words of my noble friend Lady Spielman. It is unclear how this set of amendments is going to work. It unclear whether they are proportionate. We would like to get a good understanding. We can see that there is a purpose and that they are important, but we have concerns about how the demands of this Bill fit with reality and are going to work in particular circumstances. I will not go into the detail of the amendments that I have in that space—I will wait for the Minister’s reply—but I will pick up on some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Wei on his amendments. Amendment 245 provides that, if a private tutor teaches online and never sees the child in their home, there should be no need for that tutor to supply a private address. There are other aspects. It appears that a company has to provide details of all the people it employs. What happens with online companies where you are not interfacing with anyone at any obvious location but are just interfacing with the software? It is really hard to read what you are supposed to produce and why it is reasonable to produce it. Amendment 248 highlights the absurdity of trying to quantify every minute. Many parents rightly say that their children learn continuously through conversation, trips and hobbies, without rigid slots. Precise time-logging is trying to force home education into a classroom straitjacket. Amendment 260 and, in particular, Amendment 261, which my noble friend Lord Frost has supported, seek to address what is breathtakingly open-ended stuff. What is required here and why? What is the underlying purpose being served? We have to be careful about going in for open-ended data collection. Those of us who have been here for a while will remember what happened after we passed RIPA, and the way in which local authorities sta…
Are we collecting the right information? I am struck by Baroness Whitaker's amendment requiring schools to record why a child is being withdrawn — that would be genuinely useful. As someone coming to home education from a SEND background: many children are withdrawn because schools simply do not have the capacity to teach them. Blocks of time sitting in a classroom are the kind of education that has failed this group. Too much of the wrong information will not help — will there be periodic review to make sure what is collected actually adds value? Every child is entitled to education, and every young carer is entitled to function as an adult after their caring responsibilities end.My Lords, this group is about gathering information, and I am struck by certain things. Are we collecting the right type of information? Are we ignoring other information? I was particularly struck by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which seeks to include on the register why the child is being home-educated. That would be a useful addition, though I am fully aware that others are saying that we might get a sea of information that ignores the key reason. As somebody who comes at home-education from a special educational needs background, I am familiar with lots of people who have removed their children from school because the school simply did not have the capacity to teach them accurately; teachers are trained to teach those who more closely conform to the norm and these children’s learning patterns do not correlate with that. The same will be true about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, when she said that blocks of time sitting down and studying is what education is. This is the type of education that has failed that group. For instance, many schools say, “We are going to give them extra help”. If you do not give them the right help, for this group, because the learning patterns are different, it still will not work. There are lots of little things in here that I would like the Minister to start to clear up. Too much information and the wrong sort will not help. Even then, there are certain other bits that probably should be there. Are we going to review this periodically? Are we trying to get a feel of it? If we do not do so, there is a danger that we overload. But the register should be there because every child—it comes back to this—is entitled to an education. As was movingly put and supported by my noble friend Lady Tyler, who is a carer, that child is entitled to some support. Carers are entitled to function as an adult in the outside world after they have finished their caring duties—indeed, if they ever finis…
- Before we settle the register requirements, we should remember that around 100,000 children are currently missing — not in home education, not in school, simply missing. Once we have a register for home-educated children, we will know the exact number and have the same opportunity to act. That is the highest such figure in western Europe. On information requirements: we constantly hear about teacher workload, yet we are about to impose on home educators a level of record-keeping that teachers themselves would find burdensome. Baroness Spielman was right to ask: what in these amendments genuinely adds value, and what adds very little?
I have listened to Members talk on all these amendments, and it raised some thoughts in my mind, which I just want to mention before dealing with the amendments. One of the things that we will perhaps appreciate even more as a result of having a register is that, never mind home education, there are currently 100,000 children missing. They are not in home education or schools but are missing. I hope that when we have established—if we establish—a register for home-educated children, we will know the exact number of missing children and have a similar opportunity to work out how we do something about it. It is one of the highest levels in western Europe. That is my first thought. My second thought is that we constantly hear from schools about the workload that teachers have to have, and maybe some of the discussions about what we are requiring of home educators in terms of the information from them would be music to teachers’ ears as well. In my days as a probationary teacher in my first school, I remember that the head did not require me to keep any records at all. He trusted me as a teacher. There was a single school syllabus and you just got on with it. After five years, I moved on to my second school. It was a huge culture shock because the head teacher demanded that we all had our record books and that we wrote down in great detail a paragraph for every subject from maths, literacy and numeracy right through to technology on what we were doing in that week. Perhaps this discussion also relates to issues for schools as well. Each of these amendments has important things to say. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, was absolutely right to ask, what in these amendments adds value and what adds little value? Sometimes it is not in plain sight. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, dismissed Amendment 244 as more bureaucracy. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, did not get up. His later Amendment 333ZA is about safeguarding. I do not thi…
- On my amendments in this group: Amendment 239 removes the requirement to specify how much time each parent spends educating — that is potentially redundant information. Amendment 243 sets a minimum threshold of six hours weekly so that parents need not record every piano lesson. Amendment 249 excludes weekend and holiday activities — we would never ask a school pupil how they spend their weekend. Amendment 260 — the "scoop it all up" clause — leaves the door completely open for any future Secretary of State to require whatever information they see fit. That is a point of principle: it is excessive, and the Minister may want to reconsider.
My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief and focus on my own amendments in this group as I know that we have a very ambitious target to complete today; that noble Lords came in early to do this; and that we have had a well-informed debate already. My Amendments 239, 243, 249 and 260 were supported and elegantly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Amendment 239 would remove the requirement to specify the time spent by each parent educating their child, which was described by your Lordships as potentially redundant information. Amendment 243 would set a minimum threshold of six hours weekly to avoid parents having to record every piano lesson and burdening local authorities with a volume of information that they cannot realistically assess. It has many similarities to Amendment 254B. I would not quibble with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as his amendment was very well drafted, but the spirits of the two amendments have much in common. Amendment 249 would exclude weekend and holiday activities so that we bring home-educated children into line with those at school, where we would not dream of asking how they spend their weekends and holidays. Again, we do not want every visit to the Royal Institution —however fascinating—or every swimming lesson being shared with the local authority. Finally, Amendment 260—the “scoop it all up” amendment, as my noble friend Lady Berridge described it—seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require any additional information that they see fit to be included in the register. This is an important point of principle because it leaves the door completely open for a future Secretary of State to behave in a way that many of your Lordships might consider unreasonable and unfair. It is excessive—belt and braces—and the Minister may want to reconsider it.
- Both parents' details are needed on the register because, by law, each parent has an equal responsibility for securing a suitable education — even if they are not personally providing it. Without the time each parent spends educating, how is a local authority to know whether six hours a week at a supplementary school is part of a child's education or the whole of it? What if no parent claims responsibility at all? Unfortunately some children in England receive no education from anyone. On young carers: recording young carer status could be prescribed under new Section 436C(2)(m) of the Education Act 1996 — "any other information about the child's characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority". We will consult on the content of those regulations. On Amendment 260: we do not want local authorities prevented from making their registers a productive tool due to lack of flexibility, but parents are under no obligation to provide any further information even if local authorities ask for it.
My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group—interestingly, with some rather different perspectives on the nature of the extent to which information should be included on the register. Let me deal with the range of points, I hope, as reassuringly and informatively as I can. Amendment 235A was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hacking, although it seems that it had several parents—I will try to respond to the principles of it—and Amendment 239 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments would mean that registers would be required to contain the names and addresses of only the parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child, rather than details of all parents of the child. Parents would also not need to provide information on how much time their child spends receiving education from each parent. As I said in relation to Amendment 238 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the reason why both parents’ details are needed is because, by law, each parent has an equal responsibility for securing a suitable education for their child. This remains the case even if a parent is not providing the education themselves and is instead securing other providers to do so. Although I understand the intention behind these amendments, I worry that they would result in local authorities being unable to obtain necessary information. My noble friend Lord Hacking gave a harrowing example in relation to access to information on the registers. I had hoped that my comments in our debate on the previous group had given some assurances around the control of and requirements for confidentiality around the register, which will provide some reassurance on that. Additionally, I am concerned that Amendment 239 would make it more difficult for local authorities to identify children who may not be receiving a suitable full-time education. Without having the time that a parent spends educating their child on the registers, how are local authorities to know wh…
- Does the department have a specific number of hours per week in mind as constituting full-time education? That is what the register is ultimately trying to ascertain.
Will the Minister answer my supplementary question about whether the department or she have in mind a number of hours that make up full-time education that they are trying to get to through this process?
- We are reflecting on the concerns raised and I am not yet in a position to give a specific hours figure. On the nature of education: the accepted legal definition requires elements of supervision and instruction working towards defined objectives — parents will not be required to log non-educational activities, and statutory guidance will set this out clearly. On provider thresholds: the exemptions in Amendments 243, 249 and 254B would leave gaps in the overall picture, particularly for children attending multiple providers or not following a school timetable — but guidance will make clear that non-educational activities need not be reported.
I said I will come to that—I am coming to it. I will also answer the other point about the annual report. Once again, on this, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords for taking the time to meet my officials and to outline in detail their concerns about the nature of the information that we are requesting. I understand the concern not to limit the wide range of activities that effective home education may well involve, the range of different organisations that might be contributing to it and the burdens that might be placed. I reassure noble Lords that I am reflecting on the points raised. Amendment 253, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to define what constitutes education for the purposes of for which activities parents must provide information on the registers. I anticipate that the noble Lord tabled this amendment to reduce parental burden, but it will actually do the reverse. It would bring a broad list of activities into scope of the duty to provide information, as any activity that results in the child learning would be classed as education. It is not the policy intention that registers will need to contain information on such a wide range of activities. The accepted definition of “education” is that it should contain elements of supervision and instruction that work towards defined objectives. This is supported by case law. I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the burden that the duty to provide information on a child’s education provision places on parents and local authorities. We will ensure that those burdens are kept as low as possible. Parents will not be required to give details on non-educational activities, for example, and we will outline this in detail in statutory guidance and, obviously, consult on the details. Amendments 243 and 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 254B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seek to place limitations on the providers that parents must provide info…
- Shouldn't schools also receive information about why a child is being withdrawn — so they can learn how to educate children better, not just local authorities?
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend in her very helpful answer. My amendment would require that schools get this information so that they can learn how they could educate children better. Of course, it is excellent that the local authorities have it, but should not schools have it too?
- When parents withdraw a child, the school should absolutely reflect on the reasons. The department already collects some data on reasons for home education, but there are gaps — that is precisely why the Bill allows this information to be prescribed for inclusion. Requiring parents to give the reason would risk deterring registration altogether, since for some parents the reason is deeply personal. For that reason it must remain voluntary.
I understand the point my noble friend makes. When children’s parents ask for their child to be taken off the roll of a school, which of course is absolutely their right, and the school should do that, it should also, as my noble friend says, reflect on the reasons why the parents are wanting to home educate that child. More broadly, in policy terms, I think we all need to reflect on the points made by my noble friend and others about where the reason is less a positive decision about home education and more a concern about provision for children with special educational needs or otherwise. I think my noble friend is aware that the department already collects information on reasons for home education, but, as she has highlighted, there are gaps in the data. That is why the Bill already allows for this information to be prescribed for inclusion. For example, recording whether a child is a young carer could be prescribed under new Section 436C(2)(m) of the Education Act, “any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority”. If prescribed, local authorities will need to record this information if they have it or can reasonably obtain it. We will consult on the content of these regulations, and they will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope that this will help to ensure that the information prescribed for inclusion in local authority registers is appropriate and useful. However, it is necessary that the information outlined in the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s amendments remains voluntary for parents to provide. For some parents, the reason they have chosen to home-educate is deeply personal. Requiring it could cause parents to try to avoid registration altogether, making it more difficult for local authorities to identify and support those children who need it. Amendments 260 and 261 in some ways reverse the argument being made in the previous two amendments, a point also ma…
- Local authorities already have power under new Section 436C(3) to include "any other information the local authority considers appropriate". Amendment 260 limits the Secretary of State's power to expand that further — it does not remove the local authority's own flexibility.
Very briefly, in new Section 436C(3) local authorities already have the power in legislation to include, “any other information the local authority considers appropriate”. My Amendment 260 limits the power of the Secretary of State to expand it in any way that the Secretary of State sees appropriate.
- I will come back to the noble Baroness on whether the local authority power is sufficient or whether the Secretary of State also needs flexibility. Parents are under no obligation to provide further information even if local authorities ask for it — that point must be clear to families who are worried about what will be demanded of them.
I will come back to the noble Baroness about whether that provides the flexibility I am arguing potentially needs to be in the Bill. The fear is that, as several noble Lords have argued, there are arguments for the inclusion of information that could be very helpful in identifying whether a child is receiving a suitable education, and, furthermore, what support it is possible to provide and should be provided for those children. We would not want to reduce the usefulness of the registers due to that lack of flexibility. The point I was going to come on to, which I think is important, is that I must stress that parents are under no obligation to provide any further information, even if local authorities ask for it. I think there has been concern by some parents about the extent to which they will be expected to provide that information. That is not the case; it is, as several noble Lords have rightly argued, simply about how we can ensure that these registers are effective and useful while being as unburdensome as possible. That is what we are all striving to achieve here. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments at this point.
- Having been in this House for thirty years, I know that Committee is a conversation — that is precisely what it is for. The restriction comes on Report. Here is the question: can guidance definitively define a term like "receiving education" that is not defined in the Bill, in a legally protected way? Can guidance override what the Bill's text appears to require? The Bill says everything must be recorded; the Minister says only some things need be recorded. Is guidance legally capable of doing that, or does the Bill's structure need to change? At minimum, can guidance make clear that an annual report is an acceptable way to comply — rather than the fifteen-day requirement the Bill currently implies?
My Lords, having been in this House for 30-plus years, no—you listen to the Minister, understand what they are saying, and perhaps that requires some further questioning. On the business of interrupting the Minister in the middle of her speech when you have not heard the full speech, I agree that it is relatively modern but it is clear that Committee is a conversation, and the place where that is restricted is on Report. I do not intend to be long but want to ask a short question. This is what Committee is. It is not, “Before the Minister sits down” but the basic process of Committee. I will take the advice of the clerks over lunch. I make the point here: the noble Baroness is saying that she will put things in guidance. This is a good illustration of wanting to understand the limitations of the guidance. Can guidance definitively define a term in the Bill, such as “receiving education”, which is not defined in the Bill, in a way that is legally protected? Can guidance go against those terms? The Bill clearly says that everything must be recorded. The noble Baroness is saying, “No, only some stuff needs to be recorded”. Is there power in guidance to do that? Otherwise, the structure of the Bill needs adjustment. Also, I encourage her, if she does not want to go the whole way that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does, at least to make it clear, probably in guidance, that doing this in an annual report is an option. Otherwise, the Bill is saying that it should be done within 15 days.
- This has been a fine debate lasting over ninety minutes. I have always supported registration — and we should remember that around 100,000 children are missing from school and home education alike; registration is a step toward knowing where they are. My request to the Minister: please share draft government amendments with us before Report, so we know what to bring back and what not to. On Amendments 251 and 254B — both deserve close consideration. I remain nervous about relying entirely on statutory guidance to change how the Bill will be applied; the terms of the Bill are what the nation must follow. But on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
My Lords, this has been a good debate, as my noble friend recorded in her remarks, and it has now gone on for over one and a half hours. I have always been a supporter of registration, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was wise to remind us of the large absenteeism of children who are not receiving any education at all. I make a request of the Minister on only two points. First, after the productive discussions we have had with her officials, and indeed with her colleague Stephen Morgan—I hope we have persuaded her and her officials of the important amendments that the Government could make following those discussions. I put in the request therefore to see the drafts of those amendments before we go to Report. It would be helpful and enable us to know what to do on Report. My second comment arises out of Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. We heard the replies of the Minister on those amendments. The reason for me drawing attention to them is that they were both valuable and should be given close consideration. The Minister replied that we can clear it all up in provided statutory guidance. I have always been rather nervous about leaving things to the guidance notes after the Bill because the terms of the Bill are those that the nation has to follow. One is worried about what statutory guidance will say and how it will change the application of the Bill. But that said, I withdraw my amendment and thank all noble Lords for the now over one and a half hours of debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.